GR 137514; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 137514-15, January 16, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO PANABANG Y BUSNAG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of September 4, 1997, in Sison, Pangasinan, Police Chief Inspector Romeo Astrero was having a drink with Jaime Opilas and another companion at Opilas’s house. Suddenly, gunfire erupted from the southern portion of the house. Opilas heard Astrero exclaim he was hit. Looking toward the source, Opilas saw accused-appellant Wilfredo Panabang, from a distance of about three meters, moving backwards in a stooping position while holding an Armalite rifle pointed in their direction. Opilas gave chase, but Panabang fled. Astrero was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital from a gunshot wound. A tricycle driver testified he transported Panabang, wearing a brown jacket, to the vicinity of the crime scene that evening. Police recovered empty M16 Armalite shells at the location.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Panabang is guilty of murder qualified by treachery and of illegal possession of firearm.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but acquitted Panabang of the separate charge of illegal possession of firearm. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Jaime Opilas credible, positive, and consistent. He clearly identified Panabang as the assailant from a short distance under adequate lighting conditions. His lack of motive to falsely testify bolstered his credibility. The medical and ballistic evidence corroborated the use of a high-powered firearm. The manner of attack—a sudden burst of gunfire from outside the house at unsuspecting victims engaged in a social gathering—constituted treachery, qualifying the killing to murder.
Regarding the firearm charge, the Court applied Republic Act No. 8294, which was already in effect. The law provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in murder or homicide, it is absorbed as an aggravating circumstance and not prosecuted as a separate offense. Since the information for murder did not allege the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance, it could not be used to increase the penalty. Thus, the separate conviction for illegal possession was vacated. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and awarded damages to the victim’s heirs.